Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information, 55514-55521 [2020-18085]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55514
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices
D. Special Circumstances
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix G, and 10 CFR 50.61,
is to protect the integrity of the reactor
coolant pressure boundary by ensuring
that each RPV material has adequate
fracture toughness. Application of
ASME Code, Section Ill, paragraph NB–
2331, in the determination of initial
material properties was conservatively
developed based on the level of
knowledge existing in the early 1970’s
concerning RPV materials and the
estimated effects of operation.
Since the early 1970’s, the level of
knowledge concerning these topics has
greatly expanded. This increased
knowledge level permits relaxation of
the ASME Code, Section Ill, paragraph
NB–2331, requirements via application
of BAW–2308, while maintaining the
underlying purpose of the NRC
regulations to ensure that an acceptable
margin of safety is maintained.
Based on the above, the NRC finds
that use of BAW–2308 serves the
underlying purpose of the regulation in
protecting the integrity of the reactor
coolant pressure boundary by ensuring
that the RPV materials have adequate
fracture toughness. The NRC staff has
determined that BAW–2308 applies to
the RPV materials at Braidwood and
Byron, and that its use at these facilities
is acceptable. The NRC therefore
determines that the special
circumstances required by 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present at Braidwood
and Byron.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
E. Environmental Considerations
The NRC’s approval of the exemption
to 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, and 10
CFR 50.61 belongs to a category of
actions that the NRC, by rule or
regulation, has declared to be a
categorical exclusion, after first finding
that the category of actions does not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. Specifically, the
exemption is categorically excluded
from further environmental analysis
under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), the
granting of an exemption from the
requirements of any regulation of
chapter 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) is a categorical
exclusion provided that: (i) The
exemption involves no significant
hazards consideration; (ii) there is no
significant change in the types or
significant increase in the amounts of
any effluents that may be released
offsite; and (iii) there is no significant
increase in individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
In its letter dated August 4, 2005, the
NRC concluded that BAW–2308,
Revision 1, represents an acceptable
methodology for establishing weld wire
heat specific and generic IRTT0 values
for Linde 80 welds. In its letter dated
March 24, 2008, the NRC concluded that
that the slightly modified PressurizedWater Reactor Owner’s Group initial
RTNDT methodology and the revised
IRTT0 and s1 values in BAW–2308,
Revision 2, are acceptable for estimating
the IRT0 and s1 values for various heats
of the Linde 80 welds in future RPV
integrity evaluations in license
applications. Based on the above, the
NRC staff has determined that the
granting of the exemption request
involves no significant hazards
consideration because it does not: (1)
Involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. Further, the NRC staff
has determined that issuance of the
exemptions will not result in a
significant change in the types or
significant increase in the amounts of
any effluents that may be released
offsite, or a significant increase in
individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR
51.22(b) and (c)(9), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared in
connection with the approval of this
exemption request.
IV. Conclusions
Accordingly, the NRC has determined
that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the
exemption is authorized by law, will not
present an undue risk to the public
health and safety, and is consistent with
the common defense and security. Also,
special circumstances are present (see
Special Circumstances above).
Therefore, the NRC hereby grants
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
exemptions for Byron and Braidwood,
from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, and
10 CFR 50.61 to allow the use of AREVA
NP Topical Report BAW–2308,
Revisions 1–A and 2–A, ‘‘Initial RTNDT
of Linde 80 Weld Materials.’’
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day
of August 2020
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/RA/
Gregory F. Suber,
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2020–19752 Filed 9–4–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2020–0181]
Applications and Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request;
notice of opportunity to comment,
request a hearing, and petition for leave
to intervene; order imposing
procedures.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of two amendment
requests. The amendment requests are
for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3 and Beaver Valley Power Station,
Unit 2. For each amendment request,
the NRC proposes to determine that they
involve no significant hazards
consideration. Because each amendment
request contains sensitive unclassified
non-safeguards information (SUNSI) an
order imposes procedures to obtain
access to SUNSI for contention
preparation.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
October 8, 2020. A request for a hearing
or petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed by November 9, 2020. Any
potential party as defined in section 2.4
of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) who believes
access to SUNSI is necessary to respond
to this notice must request document
access by September 18, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2020–0181. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in
Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301–287–9127; email:
Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
• Mail comments to: Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices
A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, ATTN: Program Management,
Announcements and Editing Staff.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay
Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 301–415–1506, email:
Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2020–
0181, facility name, unit number(s),
docket number(s), application date, and
subject when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2020–0181.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@
nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced (if it is
available in ADAMS) is provided the
first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2020–
0181, facility name, unit number(s),
docket number(s), application date, and
subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the NRC is publishing this
notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of
amendments containing SUNSI.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated, or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60-
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55515
day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period if circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example,
in derating or shutdown of the facility.
If the Commission takes action prior to
the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will
publish a notice of issuance in the
Federal Register. If the Commission
makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any
hearing will take place after issuance.
The Commission expects that the need
to take this action will occur very
infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any persons
(petitioner) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request
for a hearing and petition for leave to
intervene (petition) with respect to the
action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission’s
‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
persons should consult a current copy
of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations
are accessible electronically from the
NRC Library on the NRC’s website at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will
rule on the petition and, if appropriate,
a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the
petition should specifically explain the
reasons why intervention should be
permitted with particular reference to
the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the petitioner; (2)
the nature of the petitioner’s right to be
made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
petitioner’s interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f),
the petition must also set forth the
specific contentions which the
petitioner seeks to have litigated in the
proceeding. Each contention must
consist of a specific statement of the
issue of law or fact to be raised or
controverted. In addition, the petitioner
must provide a brief explanation of the
bases for the contention and a concise
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
55516
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner must also
provide references to the specific
sources and documents on which the
petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must
include sufficient information to show
that a genuine dispute exists with the
applicant or licensee on a material issue
of law or fact. Contentions must be
limited to matters within the scope of
the proceeding. The contention must be
one which, if proven, would entitle the
petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10
CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene. Parties have the opportunity
to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of
that party’s admitted contentions,
including the opportunity to present
evidence, consistent with the NRC’s
regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than
60 days from the date of publication of
this notice. Petitions and motions for
leave to file new or amended
contentions that are filed after the
deadline will not be entertained absent
a determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition
must be filed in accordance with the
filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic
Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this
document.
If a hearing is requested, and the
Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to
establish when the hearing is held. If the
final determination is that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the
Commission may issue the amendment
and make it immediately effective,
notwithstanding the request for a
hearing. Any hearing would take place
after issuance of the amendment. If the
final determination is that the
amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, then
any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of the amendment
unless the Commission finds an
imminent danger to the health or safety
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
of the public, in which case it will issue
an appropriate order or rule under 10
CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
agency thereof, may submit a petition to
the Commission to participate as a party
under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition
should state the nature and extent of the
petitioner’s interest in the proceeding.
The petition should be submitted to the
Commission no later than 60 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
The petition must be filed in accordance
with the filing instructions in the
‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’
section of this document, and should
meet the requirements for petitions set
forth in this section, except that under
10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local
governmental body, or Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof does not need to address the
standing requirements in 10 CFR
2.309(d) if the facility is located within
its boundaries. Alternatively, a State,
local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof may participate as a non-party
under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person
who is not a party to the proceeding and
is not affiliated with or represented by
a party may, at the discretion of the
presiding officer, be permitted to make
a limited appearance pursuant to the
provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make
an oral or written statement of his or her
position on the issues but may not
otherwise participate in the proceeding.
A limited appearance may be made at
any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the
limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a
limited appearance will be provided by
the presiding officer if such sessions are
scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for
leave to intervene (petition), any motion
or other document filed in the
proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to
intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities that
request to participate under 10 CFR
2.315(c), must be filed in accordance
with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR
49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at
77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Detailed guidance on
making electronic submissions may be
found in the Guidance for Electronic
Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC
website at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. Participants
may not submit paper copies of their
filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it
is participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a petition or other
adjudicatory document (even in
instances in which the participant, or its
counsel or representative, already holds
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate).
Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic
docket for the hearing in this proceeding
if the Secretary has not already
established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public website at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. Once a participant
has obtained a digital ID certificate and
a docket has been created, the
participant can then submit
adjudicatory documents. Submissions
must be in Portable Document Format
(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC’s
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A
filing is considered complete at the time
the document is submitted through the
NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the document on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before adjudicatory
documents are filed so that they can
obtain access to the documents via the
E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk
through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located
on the NRC’s public website at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
Electronic Filing Help Desk is available
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing stating why there is good cause for
not filing electronically and requesting
authorization to continue to submit
documents in paper format. Such filings
must be submitted by: (1) First class
mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the
Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing adjudicatory
documents in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission
or the presiding officer. If you do not
have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate
as described above, click ‘‘cancel’’ when
the link requests certificates and you
will be automatically directed to the
NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where
you will be able to access any publicly-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
available documents in a particular
hearing docket. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
personal phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home
addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for
limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August
28, 2019, as supplemented by letter
dated June 15, 2020. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under Package
Accession No. ML19240A925 and
ADAMS Accession No. ML20168A980,
respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendments would revise
the current licensing basis for the
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, regarding high energy line breaks
(HELBs) outside of the containment
building. The license amendment
request (LAR) includes proposed
revisions to the updated final safety
analysis report (UFSAR) in support of
the proposed revised HELB licensing
basis. The proposed change would
establish normal plant systems,
protected service water, and/or the
standby shutdown facility as the
assured mitigation path following a
HELB.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Justification: A High Energy Line Break
(HELB) does not constitute a previouslyevaluated accident. HELB is a design
criterion that is required to be considered in
the design of structures, systems, or
components and is not a design basis
accident or design basis event. The
possibility of HELBs is appropriately
considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55517
has concluded that the proposed changes do
not increase the possibility that a HELB will
occur or increase the consequences from a
HELB. This LAR provides an overview of the
HELB reanalysis, descriptions of station
modifications that will be made as a result
of the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed
mitigation strategies which now includes
normal plant equipment, the protected
service water (PSW) system, and the standby
shutdown facility (SSF).
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR
is a comprehensive reevaluation of HELBs
that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break
locations per unit. The evaluations showed
that for each break, the capability to reach
safe shutdown is available considering the
postulation of a single active failure. The
evaluation results determined the plant’s
ability to safely mitigate HELBs that could
occur and increase overall safety of the plant.
The PSW and SSF Systems are designed as
standby systems for use under emergency
conditions. With the exception of testing, the
systems are not normally pressurized. The
duration of the test configuration is short as
compared to the total plant (unit) operating
time. Due to the combination of the
infrequent testing and short duration of the
test, pipe ruptures are not postulated or
evaluated for these systems.
Other systems have also been excluded
based on the infrequency of those systems
operating at high energy conditions.
Consideration of HELBs is excluded (both
breaks and cracks) if a high energy system
operates less than 1 [percent] of the total unit
operating time such as emergency feedwater
or reactor building spray or if the operating
time of a system at high energy conditions is
less than approximately 2 [percent] of total
system operating time such as low pressure
injection. This is acceptable based on the
very low probability of a HELB occurring
during the limited operating time of these
systems at high energy conditions. Gas and
oil systems have been evaluated, since these
systems also possess limited energy.
The modifications associated with the
HELB licensing basis will be designed and
installed in accordance with applicable
quality standards to ensure that no new
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in
the design and licensing basis are introduced.
For Turbine Building HELBs that could
adversely affect equipment needed to
stabilize and cooldown the units, the PSW
system or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and
maintained. For Auxiliary Building HELBs,
normal plant systems or the SSF provides
assurance that safe shutdown can be
established and maintained.
As noted in Section 3.4 [of the LAR],
Oconee Nuclear Station plans to adopt the
provisions of [NRC] Branch Technical
Position (BTP) Mechanical Engineering
Branch (MEB) 3–1 [Revision 2 of BTP MEB
3–1, ‘‘Postulated Rupture Locations in Fluid
System Piping Inside and Outside
Containment,’’ was provided in NRC Generic
Letter 87–11, ‘‘Relaxation in Arbitrary
Intermediate Pipe Rupture Requirements,’’
ADAMS Accession No. ML031150493
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
55518
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices
regarding the elimination of arbitrary
intermediate breaks for analyzed lines that
include seismic loading. Guidance in the
BTP MEB 3–1 is used to define crack
locations in analyzed lines that include
seismic loading. Adoption of this provision
allows Oconee Nuclear Station to focus
attention to those high stress areas that have
a higher potential for catastrophic pipe
failure. In absence of additional guidance,
Duke Energy uses NUREG/CR–2913 [‘‘TwoPhase Jet Loads,’’ ADAMS Accession No.
ML073510076] to define the zone of
influence for breaks and critical cracks that
meet the range of operating parameters listed
in NUREG/CR–2913. NUREG/CR–2913
provides an analytical model for predicting
two-phase, water jet loadings on
axisymmetric targets that did not exist prior
in the Giambusso/Schwencer requirements.
In conclusion, the changes proposed will
increase assurance that safe shutdown can be
achieved following a HELB. The changes will
also collectively enhance the station’s overall
design, safety, and risk margin; therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequence of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Justification: A HELB does not constitute a
previously-evaluated accident. HELB is a
design criterion that is required to be
considered in the design of structures,
systems, or components and is not a design
basis accident or design basis event. The
possibility of HELBs is appropriately
considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy
has concluded that the proposed changes do
not increase the possibility that a HELB will
create a new or different kind of accident.
This LAR provides an overview of HELB
analysis, descriptions of station
modifications that will be made as a result
of the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed
mitigation strategies which now include
normal plant equipment, the PSW system,
and the SSF.
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR
is a comprehensive reevaluation of HELBs
that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break
locations per unit. The evaluations showed
that for each break, the capability to reach
safe shutdown is available considering the
postulation of a single active failure. The
evaluation results determined the plant’s
ability to safely mitigate HELBs that could
occur and increases overall safety of the
plant.
The modifications associated with the
HELB licensing basis will be designed and
installed in accordance with applicable
quality standards to ensure that no new
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in
the design and licensing basis are introduced.
For Turbine Building HELBs that could
adversely affect equipment needed to
stabilize and cooldown the units, the PSW
System or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
maintained. For Auxiliary Building HELBs,
normal plant systems or the SSF provides
assurance that safe shutdown can be
established and maintained.
In conclusion, the changes proposed will
increase assurance that safe shutdown can be
achieved following a HELB. The changes will
also collectively enhance the station’s overall
design, safety, and risk margin; therefore, the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Justification: A HELB does not constitute a
previously-evaluated accident. HELB is a
design criterion that is required to be
considered in the design of structures,
systems, or components and is not a design
basis accident or design basis event. The
possibility of HELBs is appropriately
considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy
has concluded that the proposed changes do
not involve a reduction in the margin of
safety. This LAR provides an overview of the
HELB analysis, descriptions of station
modifications that will be made as a result
of the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed
mitigation strategies which now include
normal plant equipment, the PSW system,
and the SSF.
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR
is a comprehensive reevaluation of HELBs
that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break
locations per unit. The evaluations showed
that for each break, the capability to reach
safe shutdown is available considering the
postulation of a single active failure. The
evaluation results determined the plant’s
ability to safely mitigate HELBs that could
occur and increases overall safety of the
plant.
The modifications associated with the
HELB licensing basis will be designed and
installed in accordance with applicable
quality standards to ensure that no new
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in
the design and licensing basis are introduced.
For Turbine Building HELBs that could
adversely affect equipment needed to
stabilize and cooldown the units, the PSW
System or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and
maintained. For Auxiliary Building HELBs,
normal plant systems or the SSF provides
assurance that safe shutdown can be
established and maintained.
The changes described above provide a
HELB licensing basis and increase overall
plant safety margins. The changes have no
effect on limiting conditions for operation,
limiting safety system settings, and safety
limits specified in the technical
specifications. Therefore, the proposed
change does not involve a reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan,
Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy
Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp., Docket
No. 50–412, Beaver Valley Power
Station, Unit 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 25,
2020. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Package Accession No.
ML20177A271.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendment would revise
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2
(BVPS–2) Technical Specification
5.5.5.2.d, ‘‘Provisions for SG [Steam
Generator] Tube Inspections,’’ and
Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3,
‘‘Provisions for SG Tube Repair
Methods,’’ requirements related to
methods of inspection and service life
for Alloy 800 steam generator tubesheet
sleeves.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification
changes do not modify structures, systems or
components of the plant, or affect plant
operations, design functions or analyses that
verify the capability of structures, systems or
components to perform a design function.
The proposed Technical Specification
changes do not increase the likelihood of a
SG tube sleeve malfunction.
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves are
designed using the applicable American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and,
therefore, meet the design objectives of the
original SG tubing. The applied stresses and
fatigue usage for the sleeves are bounded by
the limits established in the ASME Code.
Mechanical testing has shown that the
structural strength of sleeves under normal,
upset, emergency, and faulted conditions
provides margin to the acceptance limits.
These acceptance limits bound the most
limiting (three times normal operating
pressure differential) burst margin
recommended by NRC Regulatory Guide
1.121, ‘‘Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR
[Pressurized Water Reactor] Steam Generator
Tubes.’’
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeve depthbased structural limit is determined using
NRC guidance and the pressure stress
equation of ASME Code, Section III with
additional margin added to account for the
configuration of long axial cracks.
Calculations show that a depth-based limit of
45 percent through-wall degradation is
acceptable. However, Technical
Specifications 5.5.5.2.c.2 and 5.5.5.2.c.3
provide additional margin by requiring an
Alloy 800 sleeved tube to be plugged on
detection of any flaw in the sleeve or in the
pressure boundary portion of the original
tube wall in the sleeve to tube joint.
Degradation of the original tube adjacent to
the nickel band of an Alloy 800 sleeve
installed in the tubesheet, regardless of
depth, would not prevent the sleeve from
satisfying design requirements. Thus, flaw
detection capabilities within the original tube
adjacent to the sleeve nickel band are a
defense in-depth measure and are not
necessary in order to justify continued
operation of the sleeved tube.
Evaluation of repaired steam generator tube
testing and analysis indicates that there are
no detrimental effects on the leak-limiting
Alloy 800 sleeve or sleeved tube assembly
from reactor coolant system flow, primary or
secondary coolant chemistries, thermal
conditions or transients, or pressure
conditions that may be experienced at BVPS–
2.
The consequences of a hypothetical failure
of the leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeve and tube
assembly are bounded by the current steam
generator tube rupture analysis described in
the BVPS–2 Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report because the total number of plugged
steam generator tubes (including flow area
reduction associated with installed sleeves)
is required to be consistent with accident
analysis assumptions. The sleeve and tube
assembly leakage during plant operation
would be minimal and well within the
allowable Technical Specification leakage
limits and accident analysis assumptions.
Implementation of this proposed
amendment would have no significant effect
on either the configuration of the plant, the
manner in which it is operated, or ability of
the sleeve to perform its design function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification
changes do not create any credible new
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not considered in the
design or licensing bases and does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves are
designed using the applicable ASME Code,
and therefore meet the objectives of the
original steam generator tubing. Therefore,
the only credible failure modes for the sleeve
and tube are to leak or rupture, which have
already been evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
The continued integrity of the installed
sleeve and tube assembly is periodically
verified as required by the Technical
Specifications, and a sleeved tube will be
plugged on detection of a flaw in the sleeve
or in the pressure boundary portion of the
original tube wall in the sleeve to tube joint.
Implementation of this proposed
amendment would have no significant effect
on either the configuration of the plant, the
manner in which it is operated, or ability of
the sleeve to perform its design function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Implementation of the proposed Technical
Specification changes would not affect a
design basis or safety limit or reduce the
margin of safety. The repair of degraded
steam generator tubes with leak-limiting
Alloy 800 sleeves restores the structural
integrity of the degraded tube under normal
operating and postulated accident
conditions. The reduction in reactor coolant
system flow due to the addition of Alloy 800
sleeves is not significant because the
cumulative effect of repaired (sleeved) and
plugged tubes will continue to allow reactor
coolant flow to be greater than the flow limit
established in the Technical Specification
limiting condition for operation 3.4.1.
The design safety factors utilized for the
sleeves are consistent with the safety factors
in the [ASME] Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code used in the original steam generator
design. Tubes with sleeves would also be
subject to the same safety factors as the
original tubes that are described in the
performance criteria for steam generator tube
integrity in the existing Technical
Specifications. With the proposed Technical
Specification changes, the sleeve and
portions of the installed sleeve and tube
assembly that represent the reactor coolant
pressure boundary will continue to be
monitored and a sleeved tube will be plugged
on detection of a flaw in the sleeve or in the
pressure boundary portion of the original
tube wall in the leak-limiting sleeve and tube
assembly. Use of the previously identified
design criteria and design verification testing
ensures that the margin of safety is not
significantly different from the original steam
generator tubes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Rick C.
Giannantonio, General Counsel, Energy
Harbor Corp., 168 E. Market Street,
Akron, OH 44308–2014.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55519
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention
Preparation
A. This Order contains instructions
regarding how potential parties to this
proceeding may request access to
documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of
this notice of hearing and opportunity to
petition for leave to intervene, any
potential party who believes access to
SUNSI is necessary to respond to this
notice may request access to SUNSI. A
‘‘potential party’’ is any person who
intends to participate as a party by
demonstrating standing and filing an
admissible contention under 10 CFR
2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI
submitted later than 10 days after
publication of this notice will not be
considered absent a showing of good
cause for the late filing, addressing why
the request could not have been filed
earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter
requesting permission to access SUNSI
to the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
and provide a copy to the Deputy
General Counsel for Hearings and
Administration, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001. The expedited delivery or courier
mail address for both offices is: U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852. The email address for the Office
of the Secretary and the Office of the
General Counsel are Hearing.Docket@
nrc.gov and
RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov,
respectively.1 The request must include
the following information:
(1) A description of the licensing
action with a citation to this Federal
Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the
potential party and a description of the
potential party’s particularized interest
that could be harmed by the action
identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or
entity requesting access to SUNSI and
the requestor’s basis for the need for the
information in order to meaningfully
participate in this adjudicatory
proceeding. In particular, the request
must explain why publicly available
1 While a request for hearing or petition to
intervene in this proceeding must comply with the
filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’
the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this
paragraph.
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
55520
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices
versions of the information requested
would not be sufficient to provide the
basis and specificity for a proffered
contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the
information submitted under paragraph
C.(3) the NRC staff will determine
within 10 days of receipt of the request
whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to
believe the petitioner is likely to
establish standing to participate in this
NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a
legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the
requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2)
above, the NRC staff will notify the
requestor in writing that access to
SUNSI has been granted. The written
notification will contain instructions on
how the requestor may obtain copies of
the requested documents, and any other
conditions that may apply to access to
those documents. These conditions may
include, but are not limited to, the
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement
or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting
forth terms and conditions to prevent
the unauthorized or inadvertent
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual
who will be granted access to SUNSI.
F. Filing of Contentions. Any
contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received
as a result of the request made for
SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no
later than 25 days after receipt of (or
access to) that information. However, if
more than 25 days remain between the
petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the
information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in
the notice of hearing or opportunity for
hearing), the petitioner may file its
SUNSI contentions by that later
deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI
is denied by the NRC staff after a
determination on standing and requisite
need, the NRC staff shall immediately
notify the requestor in writing, briefly
stating the reason or reasons for the
denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the
NRC staff’s adverse determination by
filing a challenge within five days of
receipt of that determination with: (a)
the presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer
has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is
unavailable, another administrative
judge, or an Administrative Law Judge
with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR
2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has
been designated to rule on information
access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under
this paragraph must be made pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A
party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination
granting access to SUNSI whose release
would harm that party’s interest
independent of the proceeding. Such a
challenge must be filed within five days
of the notification by the NRC staff of its
grant of access and must be filed with:
(a) The presiding officer designated in
this proceeding; (b) if no presiding
officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is
unavailable, another administrative
judge, or an Administrative Law Judge
with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR
2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has
been designated to rule on information
access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff
determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal
process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The
availability of interlocutory review by
the Commission of orders ruling on
such NRC staff determinations (whether
granting or denying access) is governed
by 10 CFR 2.311.3
I. The Commission expects that the
NRC staff and presiding officers (and
any other reviewing officers) will
consider and resolve requests for access
to SUNSI, and motions for protective
orders, in a timely fashion in order to
minimize any unnecessary delays in
identifying those petitioners who have
standing and who have propounded
contentions meeting the specificity and
basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.
The attachment to this Order
summarizes the general target schedule
for processing and resolving requests
under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated: August 13, 2020.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING
Day
Event/Activity
0 ........................
Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests.
Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information:
supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order
for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request for
access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents).
If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requestor to file a motion seeking a ruling
to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief
Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any
party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to
file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access.
Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s).
10 ......................
60 ......................
20 ......................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
25 ......................
30 ......................
2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must
be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief
Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline
for the receipt of the written access request.
3 Requestors should note that the filing
requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR
49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46562; August 3, 2012) apply to appeals of NRC
staff determinations (because they must be served
on a presiding officer or the Commission, as
applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request
submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices
55521
ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING—Continued
Day
Event/Activity
40 ......................
(Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and
file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure
Agreement for SUNSI.
If access granted: issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access
to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a
final adverse determination by the NRC staff.
Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order.
Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days
remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene), the petitioner may file its
SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
(Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI.
(Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers.
Decision on contention admission.
A .......................
A + 3 .................
A + 28 ...............
A + 53 ...............
A + 60 ...............
>A + 60 .............
Week of September 21, 2020—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of September 21, 2020.
[FR Doc. 2020–18085 Filed 9–4–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Week of September 28, 2020—Tentative
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2020–0001]
Sunshine Act Meetings
Weeks of September 7,
14, 21, 28, October 5, 12, 19, 2020.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public.
TIME AND DATE:
Week of September 7, 2020
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of September 7, 2020.
Week of September 14, 2020—Tentative
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Tuesday, September 15, 2020
10:00 a.m. Agency’s Response to the
COVID–19 Public Health Emergency
(Public Meeting), (Contact: Luis
Betancourt: 301–415–6146).
Additional Information: Due to
COVID–19, there will be no physical
public attendance.
The public is invited to attend the
Commission’s meeting live by webcast
at the Web address—https://
www.nrc.gov/.
Thursday, September 17, 2020
10:00 a.m. Transformation at the
NRC—Milestones and Results
(Public Meeting), (Contact: Maria
Arribas-Colon: 301–415–6026).
Additional Information: Due to
COVID–19, there will be no physical
public attendance.
The public is invited to attend the
Commission’s meeting live by webcast
at the Web address—https://
www.nrc.gov/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
9:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic
Overview of the Operating Reactors
and New Reactors Business Lines
and Results of the Agency Action
Review Meeting (Public Meeting),
(Contact: Candace de Messieres:
301–415–8395).
Additional Information: Due to
COVID–19, there will be no physical
public attendance.
The public is invited to attend the
Commission’s meeting live by webcast
at the Web address—https://
www.nrc.gov/.
Week of October 5, 2020—Tentative
Thursday, October 8, 2020
10:00 a.m. Meeting with the
Organization of Agreement States
and the Conference of Radiation
Control Program Directors (Public
Meeting), (Contact: Celimar
Valentin-Rodriquez: 301–415–
7124).
Additional Information: Due to
COVID–19, there will be no physical
public attendance.
The public is invited to attend the
Commission’s meeting live by webcast
at the Web address—https://
www.nrc.gov/.
Week of October 12, 2020—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of October 12, 2020.
Week of October 19, 2020—Tentative
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
10:00 a.m. Briefing on Human Capital
and Equal Employment
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Opportunity (Public Meeting),
(Contact: Randi Neff: 301–287–
0583).
Additional Information: Due to
COVID–19, there will be no physical
public attendance.
The public is invited to attend the
Commission’s meeting live by webcast
at the Web address—https://
www.nrc.gov/.
1:00 p.m. All Employees Meeting with
the Commissioners (Public Meeting)
Additional Information: Due to
COVID–19, there will be no physical
public attendance.
The public is invited to attend the
Commission’s meeting live by webcast
at the Web address—https://
www.nrc.gov/.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For more information or to verify the
status of meetings, contact Denise
McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email
at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. The
schedule for Commission meetings is
subject to change on short notice.
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/schedule.html.
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.,
braille, large print), please notify Anne
Silk, NRC Disability Program Specialist,
at 301–287–0745, by videophone at
240–428–3217, or by email at
Anne.Silk@nrc.gov. Determinations on
requests for reasonable accommodation
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the public may request to
receive this information electronically.
If you would like to be added to the
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55514-55521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18085]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2020-0181]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment,
request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing
procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of two amendment requests. The amendment requests
are for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 and Beaver Valley
Power Station, Unit 2. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to
determine that they involve no significant hazards consideration.
Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-
safeguards information (SUNSI) an order imposes procedures to obtain
access to SUNSI for contention preparation.
DATES: Comments must be filed by October 8, 2020. A request for a
hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by November
9, 2020. Any potential party as defined in section 2.4 of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) who believes access to SUNSI
is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by
September 18, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0181. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
TWFN-7-
[[Page 55515]]
A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0181, facility name, unit
number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0181.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first
time that it is mentioned in this document.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0181, facility name, unit
number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions
into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires
the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed
to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated,
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the Federal
Register. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed,
the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
[[Page 55516]]
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references
to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends
to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the
applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions
must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The
contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner
to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR
2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted
to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. Upon
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the
document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that
provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General
Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need
not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
[[Page 55517]]
their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital
ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can
obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click ``cancel'' when the
link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to
the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access
any publicly-available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 28, 2019, as supplemented by
letter dated June 15, 2020. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Package Accession No. ML19240A925 and ADAMS Accession No.
ML20168A980, respectively.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendments would revise the current licensing basis for the
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, regarding high energy line
breaks (HELBs) outside of the containment building. The license
amendment request (LAR) includes proposed revisions to the updated
final safety analysis report (UFSAR) in support of the proposed revised
HELB licensing basis. The proposed change would establish normal plant
systems, protected service water, and/or the standby shutdown facility
as the assured mitigation path following a HELB.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Justification: A High Energy Line Break (HELB) does not
constitute a previously-evaluated accident. HELB is a design
criterion that is required to be considered in the design of
structures, systems, or components and is not a design basis
accident or design basis event. The possibility of HELBs is
appropriately considered in the UFSAR and Duke Energy has concluded
that the proposed changes do not increase the possibility that a
HELB will occur or increase the consequences from a HELB. This LAR
provides an overview of the HELB reanalysis, descriptions of station
modifications that will be made as a result of the HELB reanalysis,
and the proposed mitigation strategies which now includes normal
plant equipment, the protected service water (PSW) system, and the
standby shutdown facility (SSF).
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR is a comprehensive
reevaluation of HELBs that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break locations per unit. The
evaluations showed that for each break, the capability to reach safe
shutdown is available considering the postulation of a single active
failure. The evaluation results determined the plant's ability to
safely mitigate HELBs that could occur and increase overall safety
of the plant.
The PSW and SSF Systems are designed as standby systems for use
under emergency conditions. With the exception of testing, the
systems are not normally pressurized. The duration of the test
configuration is short as compared to the total plant (unit)
operating time. Due to the combination of the infrequent testing and
short duration of the test, pipe ruptures are not postulated or
evaluated for these systems.
Other systems have also been excluded based on the infrequency
of those systems operating at high energy conditions. Consideration
of HELBs is excluded (both breaks and cracks) if a high energy
system operates less than 1 [percent] of the total unit operating
time such as emergency feedwater or reactor building spray or if the
operating time of a system at high energy conditions is less than
approximately 2 [percent] of total system operating time such as low
pressure injection. This is acceptable based on the very low
probability of a HELB occurring during the limited operating time of
these systems at high energy conditions. Gas and oil systems have
been evaluated, since these systems also possess limited energy.
The modifications associated with the HELB licensing basis will
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable quality
standards to ensure that no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in the design and
licensing basis are introduced. For Turbine Building HELBs that
could adversely affect equipment needed to stabilize and cooldown
the units, the PSW system or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained. For Auxiliary Building
HELBs, normal plant systems or the SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained.
As noted in Section 3.4 [of the LAR], Oconee Nuclear Station
plans to adopt the provisions of [NRC] Branch Technical Position
(BTP) Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) 3-1 [Revision 2 of BTP MEB
3-1, ``Postulated Rupture Locations in Fluid System Piping Inside
and Outside Containment,'' was provided in NRC Generic Letter 87-11,
``Relaxation in Arbitrary Intermediate Pipe Rupture Requirements,''
ADAMS Accession No. ML031150493
[[Page 55518]]
regarding the elimination of arbitrary intermediate breaks for
analyzed lines that include seismic loading. Guidance in the BTP MEB
3-1 is used to define crack locations in analyzed lines that include
seismic loading. Adoption of this provision allows Oconee Nuclear
Station to focus attention to those high stress areas that have a
higher potential for catastrophic pipe failure. In absence of
additional guidance, Duke Energy uses NUREG/CR-2913 [``Two-Phase Jet
Loads,'' ADAMS Accession No. ML073510076] to define the zone of
influence for breaks and critical cracks that meet the range of
operating parameters listed in NUREG/CR-2913. NUREG/CR-2913 provides
an analytical model for predicting two-phase, water jet loadings on
axisymmetric targets that did not exist prior in the Giambusso/
Schwencer requirements.
In conclusion, the changes proposed will increase assurance that
safe shutdown can be achieved following a HELB. The changes will
also collectively enhance the station's overall design, safety, and
risk margin; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequence of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Justification: A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated
accident. HELB is a design criterion that is required to be
considered in the design of structures, systems, or components and
is not a design basis accident or design basis event. The
possibility of HELBs is appropriately considered in the UFSAR and
Duke Energy has concluded that the proposed changes do not increase
the possibility that a HELB will create a new or different kind of
accident. This LAR provides an overview of HELB analysis,
descriptions of station modifications that will be made as a result
of the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed mitigation strategies which
now include normal plant equipment, the PSW system, and the SSF.
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR is a comprehensive
reevaluation of HELBs that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break locations per unit. The
evaluations showed that for each break, the capability to reach safe
shutdown is available considering the postulation of a single active
failure. The evaluation results determined the plant's ability to
safely mitigate HELBs that could occur and increases overall safety
of the plant.
The modifications associated with the HELB licensing basis will
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable quality
standards to ensure that no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in the design and
licensing basis are introduced. For Turbine Building HELBs that
could adversely affect equipment needed to stabilize and cooldown
the units, the PSW System or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained. For Auxiliary Building
HELBs, normal plant systems or the SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained.
In conclusion, the changes proposed will increase assurance that
safe shutdown can be achieved following a HELB. The changes will
also collectively enhance the station's overall design, safety, and
risk margin; therefore, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Justification: A HELB does not constitute a previously-evaluated
accident. HELB is a design criterion that is required to be
considered in the design of structures, systems, or components and
is not a design basis accident or design basis event. The
possibility of HELBs is appropriately considered in the UFSAR and
Duke Energy has concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a
reduction in the margin of safety. This LAR provides an overview of
the HELB analysis, descriptions of station modifications that will
be made as a result of the HELB reanalysis, and the proposed
mitigation strategies which now include normal plant equipment, the
PSW system, and the SSF.
The analysis that supports the HELB LAR is a comprehensive
reevaluation of HELBs that could occur in the plant. The analysis
evaluated over 3,000 postulated break locations per unit. The
evaluations showed that for each break, the capability to reach safe
shutdown is available considering the postulation of a single active
failure. The evaluation results determined the plant's ability to
safely mitigate HELBs that could occur and increases overall safety
of the plant.
The modifications associated with the HELB licensing basis will
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable quality
standards to ensure that no new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in the design and
licensing basis are introduced. For Turbine Building HELBs that
could adversely affect equipment needed to stabilize and cooldown
the units, the PSW System or SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained. For Auxiliary Building
HELBs, normal plant systems or the SSF provides assurance that safe
shutdown can be established and maintained.
The changes described above provide a HELB licensing basis and
increase overall plant safety margins. The changes have no effect on
limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings,
and safety limits specified in the technical specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp., Docket No. 50-412, Beaver Valley Power
Station, Unit 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 25, 2020. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML20177A271.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains
SUNSI. The amendment would revise Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2
(BVPS-2) Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.d, ``Provisions for SG [Steam
Generator] Tube Inspections,'' and Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3,
``Provisions for SG Tube Repair Methods,'' requirements related to
methods of inspection and service life for Alloy 800 steam generator
tubesheet sleeves.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification changes do not modify
structures, systems or components of the plant, or affect plant
operations, design functions or analyses that verify the capability
of structures, systems or components to perform a design function.
The proposed Technical Specification changes do not increase the
likelihood of a SG tube sleeve malfunction.
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves are designed using the
applicable American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code and, therefore, meet the design objectives
of the original SG tubing. The applied stresses and fatigue usage
for the sleeves are bounded by the limits established in the ASME
Code. Mechanical testing has shown that the structural strength of
sleeves under normal, upset, emergency, and faulted conditions
provides margin to the acceptance limits. These acceptance limits
bound the most limiting (three times normal operating pressure
differential) burst margin recommended by NRC Regulatory Guide
1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor]
Steam Generator Tubes.''
[[Page 55519]]
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeve depth-based structural limit
is determined using NRC guidance and the pressure stress equation of
ASME Code, Section III with additional margin added to account for
the configuration of long axial cracks. Calculations show that a
depth-based limit of 45 percent through-wall degradation is
acceptable. However, Technical Specifications 5.5.5.2.c.2 and
5.5.5.2.c.3 provide additional margin by requiring an Alloy 800
sleeved tube to be plugged on detection of any flaw in the sleeve or
in the pressure boundary portion of the original tube wall in the
sleeve to tube joint.
Degradation of the original tube adjacent to the nickel band of
an Alloy 800 sleeve installed in the tubesheet, regardless of depth,
would not prevent the sleeve from satisfying design requirements.
Thus, flaw detection capabilities within the original tube adjacent
to the sleeve nickel band are a defense in-depth measure and are not
necessary in order to justify continued operation of the sleeved
tube.
Evaluation of repaired steam generator tube testing and analysis
indicates that there are no detrimental effects on the leak-limiting
Alloy 800 sleeve or sleeved tube assembly from reactor coolant
system flow, primary or secondary coolant chemistries, thermal
conditions or transients, or pressure conditions that may be
experienced at BVPS-2.
The consequences of a hypothetical failure of the leak-limiting
Alloy 800 sleeve and tube assembly are bounded by the current steam
generator tube rupture analysis described in the BVPS-2 Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report because the total number of plugged
steam generator tubes (including flow area reduction associated with
installed sleeves) is required to be consistent with accident
analysis assumptions. The sleeve and tube assembly leakage during
plant operation would be minimal and well within the allowable
Technical Specification leakage limits and accident analysis
assumptions.
Implementation of this proposed amendment would have no
significant effect on either the configuration of the plant, the
manner in which it is operated, or ability of the sleeve to perform
its design function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification changes do not create any
credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not considered in the design or licensing bases and does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
The leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves are designed using the
applicable ASME Code, and therefore meet the objectives of the
original steam generator tubing. Therefore, the only credible
failure modes for the sleeve and tube are to leak or rupture, which
have already been evaluated.
The continued integrity of the installed sleeve and tube
assembly is periodically verified as required by the Technical
Specifications, and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of a
flaw in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the
original tube wall in the sleeve to tube joint.
Implementation of this proposed amendment would have no
significant effect on either the configuration of the plant, the
manner in which it is operated, or ability of the sleeve to perform
its design function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Implementation of the proposed Technical Specification changes
would not affect a design basis or safety limit or reduce the margin
of safety. The repair of degraded steam generator tubes with leak-
limiting Alloy 800 sleeves restores the structural integrity of the
degraded tube under normal operating and postulated accident
conditions. The reduction in reactor coolant system flow due to the
addition of Alloy 800 sleeves is not significant because the
cumulative effect of repaired (sleeved) and plugged tubes will
continue to allow reactor coolant flow to be greater than the flow
limit established in the Technical Specification limiting condition
for operation 3.4.1.
The design safety factors utilized for the sleeves are
consistent with the safety factors in the [ASME] Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code used in the original steam generator design. Tubes with
sleeves would also be subject to the same safety factors as the
original tubes that are described in the performance criteria for
steam generator tube integrity in the existing Technical
Specifications. With the proposed Technical Specification changes,
the sleeve and portions of the installed sleeve and tube assembly
that represent the reactor coolant pressure boundary will continue
to be monitored and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of a
flaw in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the
original tube wall in the leak-limiting sleeve and tube assembly.
Use of the previously identified design criteria and design
verification testing ensures that the margin of safety is not
significantly different from the original steam generator tubes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Rick C. Giannantonio, General Counsel,
Energy Harbor Corp., 168 E. Market Street, Akron, OH 44308-2014.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties
to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and
opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who
believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may
request access to SUNSI. A ``potential party'' is any person who
intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing
an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to
SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice
will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late
filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to
access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel
for Hearings and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited
delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the
General Counsel are [email protected] and
[email protected], respectively.\1\ The request must
include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this
proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's
``E-Filing Rule,'' the initial request to access SUNSI under these
procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
Federal Register notice;
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description
of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed
by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to
SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in
order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In
particular, the request must explain why publicly available
[[Page 55520]]
versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to
provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt
of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely
to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to
SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both
D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in
writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification
will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the
requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access
to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited
to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or
Protective Order \2\ setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure
Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding
officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer
has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the
receipt of the written access request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
are based upon the information received as a result of the request made
for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after
receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25
days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the
information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as
established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff
after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff
shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the
reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse
determination by filing a challenge within five days of receipt of that
determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this
proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief
Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another
administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been
designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may
challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose
release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding.
Such a challenge must be filed within five days of the notification by
the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The
presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding
officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or
she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative
Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if
another officer has been designated to rule on information access
issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these
procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes
concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory
review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff
determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10
CFR 2.311.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the
NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77
FR 46562; August 3, 2012) apply to appeals of NRC staff
determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer
or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI
request submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers
(and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests
for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely
fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying
those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions
meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The
attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for
processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
Dated: August 13, 2020.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Attachment 1--General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving
Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
in This Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Event/Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of
hearing and opportunity to petition for
leave to intervene, including order with
instructions for access requests.
10....................... Deadline for submitting requests for access
to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) with information:
supporting the standing of a potential party
identified by name and address; describing
the need for the information in order for
the potential party to participate
meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding.
60....................... Deadline for submitting petition for
intervention containing: (i) Demonstration
of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose
formulation does not require access to SUNSI
(+25 Answers to petition for intervention;
+7 petitioner/requestor reply).
20....................... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
staff informs the requestor of the staff's
determination whether the request for access
provides a reasonable basis to believe
standing can be established and shows need
for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party
to the proceeding whose interest independent
of the proceeding would be harmed by the
release of the information.) If NRC staff
makes the finding of need for SUNSI and
likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins
document processing (preparation of
redactions or review of redacted documents).
25....................... If NRC staff finds no ``need'' or no
likelihood of standing, the deadline for
petitioner/requestor to file a motion
seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's
denial of access; NRC staff files copy of
access determination with the presiding
officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or
other designated officer, as appropriate).
If NRC staff finds ``need'' for SUNSI, the
deadline for any party to the proceeding
whose interest independent of the proceeding
would be harmed by the release of the
information to file a motion seeking a
ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of
access.
30....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to
reverse NRC staff determination(s).
[[Page 55521]]
40....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and
need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to
complete information processing and file
motion for Protective Order and draft Non-
Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/
licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement
for SUNSI.
A........................ If access granted: issuance of presiding
officer or other designated officer decision
on motion for protective order for access to
sensitive information (including schedule
for providing access and submission of
contentions) or decision reversing a final
adverse determination by the NRC staff.
A + 3.................... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure
Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI
consistent with decision issuing the
protective order.
A + 28................... Deadline for submission of contentions whose
development depends upon access to SUNSI.
However, if more than 25 days remain between
the petitioner's receipt of (or access to)
the information and the deadline for filing
all other contentions (as established in the
notice of opportunity to request a hearing
and petition for leave to intervene), the
petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by
that later deadline.
A + 53................... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to
contentions whose development depends upon
access to SUNSI.
A + 60................... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor
reply to answers.
>A + 60.................. Decision on contention admission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-18085 Filed 9-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
